Blitz Bureau
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on February 10 agreed to examine a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking a declaration that medical professionals do not fall within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA). Issuing notice, a Bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, and comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and N.V. Anjaria, sought responses from the Union Ministries of Health and Family Welfare and Consumer Affairs, as well as the National Medical Commission, in the matter.
The PIL, filed by the Association of Healthcare Providers (India) and Dr Alexander Thomas under Article 32 of the Constitution, sought a writ of mandamus directing the authorities to exclude medical professionals holding MBBS or higher qualifications from the definition of “service” under Section 2(42) of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA), 2019.
It contended that subjecting medical professionals to consumer law has eroded the patient-doctor relationship and encouraged defensive medical practices.
The petition relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Bar of Indian Lawyers vs. D.K. Gandhi (2024) case, wherein the apex court held that the legislature never intended to bring professionals within the ambit of the consumer protection law, observing that the statute was enacted to protect consumers from unfair trade practices and unethical business practices.
Quoting the judgment, the plea highlighted that the latest judgment itself had observed that the apex court’s earlier 1995 ruling in Indian Medical Association act, VP Shantha, which brought medical services under the consumer law, “deserves to be revisited and considered by a larger Bench”.
The plea submitted that although advocates have now been exempted from the purview of the CPA, doctors continue to be governed by the 1995 precedent, despite the changed legal position. The petition referred to the personal experience of Dr Thomas, a senior medical professional, who was named in a consumer forum case in the mid-1990s in connection with the treatment of a road accident victim. Although the complaint was eventually dismissed, the prolonged litigation had a “deeply demoralising” impact and pushed him to the brink of leaving the profession, the plea said.
